It is almost the norm for many journals to ask authors submitting manuscripts for review and seeking space in their future editions to nominate between 3 and 5 potential reviewers as a requirement for submission for the review process. Do you think this is a good practice in science? Is this practice not breeding nepotism? Is it not used to impede scientific progress of young and up and coming researchers with little or no connections in the scientific world and mostly coming from less endowed countries? Do you think, someone can do any critical assessment of the work or his colleague or friend knowing he too will assess his own soon? Who will nominate someone he/she thinks will be harsh on his or her work? Is this not compromising the whole idea of peer review?
Yes, you just suggest and the editor choose from you recommendations according to ethically and scientifically criteria
I totally agree with you. This should be stopped. I also suggest that name of authors should not be vissible to revivers and editors.
There is a global move to make or print the names of the reviewers on the published manuscripts, as some already prints the name of the editor.
That could be a good move Claude but what happens to those who give unscientific and personal reasons to stop quality work from progressing through the peer review process? Where will those names pop up? Don't you think what Vijay is saying is reasonable? Maybe reviewers and editors shouldn't know names of authors or even their institutions. Imagine an editor is a close friend of a person an author has apposed as a reviewer? What happens to his paper? I believe there is too much subjectivity in publication in the research world today. What can we do to reduce this and make it more objective?
Yes, you just suggest and the editor choose from you recommendations according to ethically and scientifically criteria
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers